¹ Which Merkel epitomized in the phrase: “Scheitert der Euro, dann scheitert Europa.” (“If the Euro fails, then Europe fails.”) Bundesregierung, Official German Government Bulletin (Oct. 26, 2011), http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Bulletin/2011/10/111-1-bk-bt.html.Google Scholar

² Eur. Council, Declaration by the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Union on the Ratification of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe (June 18, 2005), http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/85325.pdf.Google Scholar

³ It is debatable whether the term Constitutional Treaty was a hint at statehood. See Paul Berman, From Laeken to Lisbon: The Origins and Negotiation of the Lisbon Treaty, in EU law after Lisbon 3 (Andrea Biondi, Piet Eeckhout & Stefanie Ripley eds., 2012).Google Scholar

⁴ For instance, the European Foreign Minister was recast as the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. See The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, Dec. 16, 2004, 2004 O.J. (C 310).Google Scholar

⁵ Which dismissed applications against the original Constitutional Treaty, Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court], June 18, 2005, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VfSlg] No. G 62/05, Constitutional Treaty; against the Lisbon Treaty ex ante, Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court], Sept. 30, 2009, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VfSlg] No. SV 2/08, Lisbon I; and against the Lisbon Treaty ex post for lack of a prima facie infringement of rights Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court], June 12, 2010, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VfSlg] SV 1/10, Lisbon II. Google Scholar

⁶ Which engaged primarily with domestic provisions, Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court], decision no 58/2009, Mar. 19, 2009 (Belg.) and dismissed the second challenge on procedural grounds, Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court], decision no 156/2009, Oct. 17, 2008 (Belg.).Google Scholar

⁷ Not to be confused with the Conseil d'État, France's highest administrative court and advisory body.Google Scholar

⁸ Collectively referred to as European Constitutional Courts. Google Scholar

⁹ Tomuschat, Christian, The Ruling of the German Constitutional Court on the Treaty of Lisbon, 10 German L.J. 1259 (2009).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1010/08; 2 BvR 1022/08; 2 BvR 1259/08; 2 BvR 182/09, 2009 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT [NJW] 123, (June 30, 2009) [hereinafter German CC, Lisbon]. Google Scholar

¹¹ Ústavní soud České republiky (ÚS) [Decision of the Constitutional Court of Nov. 26, 2008] Pl. ÚS 19/08: Treaty of Lisbon I, http://www.usoud.cz/en/decisions/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=484&cHash=621d8068f5e20ecadd84e0bae0527552 [hereinafter Czech CC, Lisbon I]; Ústavní soud České republiky (ÚS) [Decision of the Constitutional Court of Nov. 3, 2009] Pl. ÚS 29/09: Treaty of Lisbon II, http://www.usoud.cz/en/decisions/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=466&cHash=eedba7ca14d226b879ccaf91a6dcb276 [hereinafter Czech CC, Lisbon II]. Google Scholar

¹² Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2004-505DC, Nov. 19, 2004, Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (Fr.) [hereinafter French CC, Constitutional Treaty].; Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2007-560DC, Dec. 20, 2007 (Fr.) [hereinafter French CC, Lisbon]. Google Scholar

¹³ Trybunał Konstytucyjny [Constitutional Tribunal] Nov. 24, 2010, K 32/09 (Pol.) [hereinafter Polish CT, Lisbon]. Google Scholar

¹⁴ Defined as the power of a body to determine its own powers, adopted from Tobias Lock, Why the European Union is not a State, 5 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 409 (2009).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Attempts at clarification are undertaken by Armin von Bogdandy, Europäische und Nationale Identität: Integration durch Verfassungsrecht?, 62 VVDStRL 164 (2003); Jan-Herman Reestman, The Franco-German Constitutional Divide, 5 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 384 (2009); Mattias Wendel, Lisbon Before the Courts: Comparative Perspectives, 7 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 131 (2011).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Bieber, Roland, An Association of Sovereign States, 5 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 392 (2009); Peter L. Lindseth, Democratic Legitimacy and the Administrative Character of Supranationalism: the Example of the European Community, 99 Colum. L. Rev. 628, 738 (1999).Google Scholar

¹⁷ German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 231. This is correctly critiqued as missing an essential component, namely “if and when acting jointly” with the other Member States. See Bieber, supra note 16, at 397.Google Scholar

¹⁸ German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 216–218.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Pernice, Ingolf, Motor or Brake for European Policies? Germany's New Role in the EU After the Lisbon-Judgment of Its Federal Constitutional Court, in Europe's Constitutional Challenges in the Light of the Recent Case law 372 (José Maria Beneyto & Ingolf Pernice eds., 2011).Google Scholar

²⁰ Pieroth, Bodo, Art. 79, in Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland Kommentar no. 6 (Hans D. Jarass & Bodo Pieroth eds., 12th ed. 2012).Google Scholar

²¹ German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 224-226; subscribing to Georg Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre 183 (1922).Google Scholar

²² German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 344-345.Google Scholar

²³ Id. at para. 346.Google Scholar

²⁴ Doukas, Dimitrios, The Verdict of the German Federal Constitutional Court on the Lisbon Treaty: Not Guilty, but Don't Do It Again!, 34 Eur. L. Rev. 886 (2009). For similar criticism on the preceding Maastricht Judgment, see Joseph H. Weiler, The State “Uber Alles”: Demos, Telos and the German Maastricht Decision (Eur. Univ. Inst. Working Paper No. 95/19, 1995), http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/95/9506ind.html; and Julio Baquero Cruz, The Legacy of the Maastrict-Urteil and the Pluralist Movement, 14 Eur. L.J. 389, 411 (2008). On more flexible notions, see Robert Schütze, On the “Federal” Ground: The European Union As an (Inter)national Phenomenon, 46 Common Mkt. l. Rev. 1069 (2009). On origins of the debate in general, see Frederico Mancini, Europe: The Case for Statehood, 4 Eur. L.J. 29 (1998); Joseph H. Weiler, Europe: The Case Against the Case for Statehood, 4 Eur. L.J. 43 (1998); Paul Craig, The Nature of the Community: Integration, Democracy and Legitimacy, in The Evolution of EU law 23 (Paul Craig & Gráinne de Bùrca eds., 1999).Google Scholar

²⁵ Lock, , supra note 14, at 408. See also, Ulrike Liebert, More Democracy in the European Union?! Mixed Messages from the German Lisbon Ruling, in The German Constitutional Court‘s Lisbon Ruling: Legal and Political-Science Perspectives 79, 80 (Andreas Fischer-Lescano, Christian Joerges & Arndt Wonka eds., 2010); Daniel Thym, From Ultra-Vires-Control to Constitutional Identity Review: The Lisbon Judgment of the German Constitutional Court, in Europe‘s Constitutional Challenges in the Light of the Recent Case Law of National Constitutional Courts—Lisbon and Beyond 36 (Jose Maria Beneyto & Ingolf Pernice eds., 2011).Google Scholar

²⁶ German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 225.Google Scholar

²⁷ Id. at para. 329.Google Scholar

²⁸ As a right to withdrawal from an existing federation is typically limited under International Law to the right of self-determination in the context of decolonization, see Susanna Mancini, Rethinking the Boundaries of Democratic Secession: Liberalism, Nationalism, and the Right of Minorities to Self-Determination, 6 Int'l J. Const. L. 553 (2008).Google Scholar

²⁹ Lock, , supra note 14, at 414.Google Scholar

³⁰ Lock, , supra note 14, at 414; Christoph Möllers, Pouvoir Constituant – Constitution – Constitutionalisation, in Principles of European Constitutional Law 201, 202 (Armin von Bogdandy & Jürgen Bast eds., 2006).Google Scholar

³¹ Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, at paras. 100–101.Google Scholar

³² Id. at para. 209.Google Scholar

³³ Czech, CC, Lisbon II, supra note 11, at para. 147. See also, Jan Komárek, The Czech Constitutional Court's Second Decision on the Lisbon Treaty, 5 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 345, 350 (2009); Ingolf Pernice, The Treaty of Lisbon: Multilevel Constitutionalism in Action, 15 Colum. J. Eur. L. 375 (2009).Google Scholar

³⁴ Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, para. 107.Google Scholar

³⁵ Id. at para. 108.Google Scholar

³⁶ Id. at para. 106.Google Scholar

³⁷ Polish, CT, Lisbon, supra note 13, at para. 2.1.Google Scholar

³⁸ Id. at para. 2.1.Google Scholar

³⁹ Id. Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Id. Google Scholar

⁴¹ Id. Google Scholar

⁴² Id. Google Scholar

⁴³ Id. at para. 2.2.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ French, CC, Lisbon, supra note 12, at para. 9.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ This was preceded by the earlier concept of an “express contrary provision of the Constitution.” See Reestman, supra note 15, at 386; Chloé Charpy, The Status of (Secondary) Community Law in the French Internal Order: The Recent Case-Law of the Conseil Constitutionnel and the Conseil d'Etat, 3 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 436 (2007); Bertrand Mathieu, Les Rapports Normatifs Entre le Droit Communautaire et le Reestman Droit National. Bilan et Incertitudes Relatifs aux Evolutions Récentes de la Jurisprudence des Juges Constitionnel et Administrative Français, RFDC 675 (2007).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2006-540DC, Nov. 19, 2004, para. 19, Société de l'information (Fr.) [hereinafter French CC, Société de l'information]; French CC, Constitutional Treaty, supra note 12, at para. 13.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Though it has been suggested as limited to those principles specific to the French constitutional order. See Conseil d'Etat, Assemblée - Arrêt du 8 février 2007 (req. 257341 et 257534), Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine et autres, Conclusions de Mattias Guyomar et Note de Paul Cassia, “Le droit Communautaire dans et sous la Constitution Française,” 43 Q. Rev. Eur. L. 378, 385 (2007).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Jacqueline Dutheil de la Rochère, French Conseil Constitutionnel: Recent Developments, in Europe's Constitutional Challenges in the Light of the Recent Case Law of National Constitutional Courts: Lisbon and Beyond 18, 21 (José Marian Beneyto & Ingolf Pernice eds., 2011).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Lerche, Peter, Die Europäische Staatlichkeit und die Identität des Grundgesetzes, in Rechtsstaat zwischen Sozialgestaltung und Rechtsschutz, Festschrift für Konrad Redeker 131 (Bern Bender, Rüdiger Breuer, Fritz Ossenbühl & Horst Sendler eds., 1993).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2134/92; 2 BvR 2159/92; (Oct. 12, 1993) 89 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 155 [hereinafter German CC, Maastricht].Google Scholar

⁵¹ Lenaerts, Koen, De Rome à Lisbonne, la Constitution Européenne en Marche?, 44 C.D.E. 229, 241 (2009); Koen Lenaerts & Marlies Desomer, New Models of Constitution-Making in Europe: The Quest for Legitimacy, 39 Common Mkt. l. Rev. 1243 (2002).Google Scholar

⁵² Schütze, supra note 24, at 1069.Google Scholar

⁵³ Dougan, Michael, The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: Winnings Minds, not Hearts, 45 Common Mkt. l. Rev. 692, 698 (2008).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Which are still dominated by inter-governmental action. Franz Cromme, Eine Konsequenz aus der Krise: Fortentwicklung der EU als Staatenverbund?, 6 Die öffentliche Verwaltung [DÖV] 212 (2012). On the current state of the CFSP, see Piet Eeckhout, The EU's Common and Foreign and Security Policy after Lisbon: From Pillar Talk to Constitutionalism, in EU Law after Lisbon 265 (Andrea Biondi, Piet Eeckhout & Stefanie Ripley eds., 2012).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ On the rich debate in this area, see Florence Chaltiel, La souveraineté de l'Etat et l'Union Européenne, l'exemple français (2000); Neil MacCormick, Questioning Sovereignty (1999); Anne Peters, Elemente einer Theorie einer Verfassung Europas 163 (2001); Utz Schliessky, Die Weiterentwicklung von Begriffen der Staatslehre und des Staatsrechts im europäsichen Mehrebenensystem (2004); Sovereignty in Transition (Neil Walker ed., 2006).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Grimm, Dieter, Defending Sovereign Statehood Against Transforming the European Union into a State, 5 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 366 (2009); Armin Steinbach, The Lisbon Judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court, 11 German L.J. 372 (2010). The approach has tentatively featured in the preceding Maastricht ruling, which was heavily criticized. See Meinhard Schröder, Das Bundesverfassungsgericht als Hüter des Staates im Prozeß der Europäischen Integration - Bemerkungen zum Maastricht-Urteil, 6 DVBl 318 (1994); Hermann-Josef Blanke, Der Unionsvertrag von Maastricht, 46 DÖV 421 (1993).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Thym, , supra note 25, at 42. Similarly, but referring to the specific difficulty in determining if a shift of an individual power to the EU has occurred, see Gunnar Beck, The Lisbon Judgment of the German Constitutional Court, the Primacy of EU Law and the Problem of Kompetenz-Kompetenz: A Conflict Between Right and Right in Which There is no Praetor, 17 Eur. L.J. 482 (2011).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Grimm, , supra note 56, at 367.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See Soverereignty Lost, Soverereignty Regained? The European Integration Project and the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Eur. Univ. Inst. Working Paper No. 2001/31, 2001).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Thym, , supra note 25, at 33.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See Saladin, Peter, Wozu noch Staaten? (1995).Google Scholar

⁶² Bieber, , supra note 16, at 398.Google Scholar

⁶³ Id. at 400 (rejecting the use of this term in a European context).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Lebeck, Carl, National Constitutionalism, Openness to International Law and Pragmatic Limits of European Integration – European Law in the German Constitutional Court from EEC to the PJCC, 7 German L.J. 907 (2006).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Halberstam, Daniel & Möllers, Christoph, The German Constitutional Court Says “Ja zu Deutschland!”, 10 German L.J. 1241, 1250 (2009); Doukas, supra note 24, at 882.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 240.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Id. at paras. 252–260; Rike U. Krämer wonders whether even these matters can be adequately dealt with in national isolation, see Looking through Different Glasses at the Lisbon Treaty: The German Constitutional Court and the Czech Constitutional Court, in The German Constitutional Court's Lisbon Ruling: Legal and Political-Science Perspectives 18 (Andreas Fischer-Lescano, Christian Joerges & Arndt Wonka eds., 2010).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Fabio, Udo Di, Some Remarks on the Allocation of Competences between the European Union and its Member States, 39 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1289, 1297 (2002).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 236–239.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Id. at para. 233.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Herdegen, Matthias, Article 79, in Grundgesetz-Kommentar para. 63 (Theodor Maunz & Günter Dürig eds., 67th ed. 2013).Google Scholar

⁷² Herbst, Tobias, Legale Abschaffung des Grundgesetzes nach Art. 146 GG?, Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 33, 35 (2012).Google Scholar

⁷³ See id. at 35; see also Mathias Jestaedt, Warum in die Ferne schweifen, wenn der Maßstab liegt so nah? Verfassungshandwerkliche Anfragen an das Lissabon-Urteil des BVerfG, 48 Staat 505 (2009); see also Dieter Grimm, Das Grundgesetz als Riegel vor einer Verstaatlichung der Europäischen Union. Zum Lissabon-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, 48 Staat 490 (2009).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See Beck, supra note 57, at 481.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Bodin, Jean, 10 Les six livres de la République ch. XX (10th ed. 1986) (1583) (describing it as the “marque de souvergineté”). See also Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, The Road to Monetary Union in Europe 35 (1994).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See Wendel, , supra note 15, at 126; see also Arnold Schönberger, Lisbon in Karlsruhe: Maastricht's Epigones at Sea, 10 German L.J. 1209 (2009).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See Bieber, , supra note 16, at 392.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See Beck, , supra note 57, at 483; see also Christian Wohlfahrt, The Lisbon Case: A Critical Summary, 10 German L.J. 1285 (2009).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See Schorkopf, Frank, The European Union as An Association of Sovereign States, 10 German L.J. 1230 (2009).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See Kirchhof, Paul, Die Wahrnehmung von Hoheitsgewalt durch Mitgliedstaaten und Gemeinschaftsorgane, Humboldt Forum Recht 13 (1997).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Ústavní soud České republiky 08.03.2006 (ÚS) [Czech Constitutional Court decision of Mar. 8, 2006], PL. ÙS 50/04 (hereinafter Czech CC, Sugar Quotas).Google Scholar

⁸² Briza, Petr, The Constitutional Court on the Lisbon Treaty, Decision of 26 November 2008, 5 Eur. Const. L. Rev 148 (2009).Google Scholar

⁸³ Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, at para. 130.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Id. at para. 111 (showing that applicants evidently had the German CC's ruling in mind when making this request).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See Briza, , supra note 82, at 152.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, at para. 146.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Id. at para. 113.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See id. at para. 109; see also Czech CC, Lisbon II, supra note 11, at para. 111.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, at para. 109.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Polish, CT, Lisbon, supra note 13, at para. 2.1.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Polish, CT, Lisbon, supra note 13, at para. 2.1.Google Scholar

⁹² See id. at para. 2.1.Google Scholar

⁹³ See id. at paras. 2.1, 2.5.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See id. at paras. 2.1, 2.6.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court], decision No. 92-308 DC, Apr. 9, 1992, para. 14 [hereinafter French CC, Maastricht I].Google Scholar

⁹⁶ French, CC, Lisbon, supra note 12, at para. 20.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ French, CC, Lisbon, supra note 12, at paras. 18, 19.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ See Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court], decision No. 2003-469 DC, Mar. 26, 2003, paras. 2, 3 (hereinafter French CC, L'organisation décentralisée de la République); See Reestman, supra note 15, at 389; French CC, 92-313 DC, Maastricht Treaty III, paragraph 2 (hereinafter French CC, Maastricht Treaty III); Jacques Ziller, Sovereignty in France: Getting Rid of the Mal de Bodin, in Sovereignty in Transition 271 (Neil Walker ed., 2003).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ See Lock, , supra note 14, at 411.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ For a comparative analysis, see Phillip Kiiver, German Participation in EU Decision-Making after the Lisbon Case: A Comparative View on Domestic Parliamentary Clearance Procedures, 10 German L.J. 1287 (2009).Google Scholar

¹⁰² See Lock, supra note 14, at 411 (seeming to acknowledge that this is not an obvious example).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Kiiver, Phillip, The Lisbon Judgment of the German Constitutional Court: A Court-Ordered Strengthening of the National Legislature in the EU, 5 Eur. L.J. 580, 587 (2010).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ German, CC, Lisbon, at para. 328.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ See Lock, , supra note 14, at 412; see also Grimm, supra note 56, at 369.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Comm'n v. Council, CJEU Case 22/70, 1971 E.C.R. 263.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Cremona, Marise, Defining competence in EU external relations: lessons from the Treaty reform process, in Law and Practice of EU External Relations - Salient Features of a Changing Landscape 61 (Alan Dashwood & Marc Maresceau eds., 2008)Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ See Lock, , supra note 14, at 413, 415.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Jochen Abr. Forwein, Das Maastricht Urteil und die Grenzen der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit, 54 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 7 (1994); Udo Di Fabio, Der neue Art.23 des Grundgesetzes, 13 Staat 197 (1993).Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court] 2 BVR 2134/92, 89 BVerfGE 155 (Oct. 12, 1993).Google Scholar

¹¹¹ See Bieber, , supra note 16, at 403.Google Scholar

¹¹² See Eriksen, Erik Oddvar & Fossum, John Erik, Bringing European Democracy Back In – Or How to Read the German Constitutional Court's Lisbon Treaty Ruling, 17 Eur. L.J. 153 (2011) (discussing possible conceptions).Google Scholar

¹¹³ German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 276–281.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Habermas, Jürgen, Why Europe Needs a Constitution, 11 New Left Rev. 5 (2001).Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ See Doukas, , supra note 24, at 873; see also Tomuschat, supra note 9, at 1260; see also Schorkopf, supra note 79, at 1224.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ The tolerance of the 5 percent hurdle (Sperrklausel) alone attests to that.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ See Grimm, Dieter, Souveränität – Herkunft und Zukunft eines Schlüsselbegriffs 123 (2009) (“Souveränität ist heute auch Demokratieschutz” [“These days, sovereignty also safeguards democracy”]).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ See Scharpf, Fritz Wilhelm, Demokratie in der transnationalen Politik, in Politik der Globalisierung 228, 236 (Ulrich Beck ed., 1998); see also Michael Zürn, Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaates 9 (1998).Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 287.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Id. at para. 288.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Id. at para. 285.Google Scholar

¹²² See Wohlfahrt, , supra note 78, at 1279.Google Scholar

¹²³ German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 286.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ See Schönberger, supra note 76, at 1207; see also Bieber, supra note 16, at 402.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ See Dworkin, Ronald, Freedom's Law – The Moral Reading of the American Constitution 15 (1996) (critiquing extensively).Google Scholar

¹²⁶ See Tomuschat, , supra note 9, at 1261.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ See Haack, Stefan, Demokratie mit Zukunft? Zwei Alternativen der Neukonzeption einer Staatsform, 67 Juristenzeitung 753 (2012); see also Robert A. Dahl, Democracy and its critics 193 (1989); see also David Held, Models of Democracy 337 (1996); see also Angela Augustin, Das Volk der Europäischen Union (2000); Peter Häberle, Europäische Verfassungslehre (2007); see also Utz Schliessky, Souveränität und Legitimität von Herrschaftsgewalt: Die Weiterentwicklung von Begriffen der Staatslehre und des Staatsrechts im europäsichen Mehrebenensystem (2004); see also Anne Peters, European Democracy after the 2003 Convention, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 37 (2004); see also Giadomenico Majone, Europe's Democratic Deficit: The Question of Standards, 4 Eur. L.J. 5 (1998).Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Scharpf, Fritz Wilhelm, Demokratietheorie zwischen Utopie und Anpassung (1970); Fritz Wilhelm Scharpf, Democratic policy in Europe, 2 Eur. L.J.136 (1996); Martin Nettesheim, Demokratisierung der Europäischen Union und Europäisierung der Demokratietheorie – Wechselwirkungen bei der Herausbildung eines europäischen Demokratieprinzips, in Demokratie in Europa (Hartmut Bauer, Peter M. Huber & Karl Peter Sommermann eds., 2005).Google Scholar

¹²⁹ See Stefan Oeter Federalism and Democracy, in Principles of European Constitutional Law 55, 56 (Armin v. Bogdandy & Jürgen Bast eds., 2009); see also Schönberger, supra note 76, at 1211, 1212; see also Halberstam & Möllers, supra note 65, at 1248; see also A. Moravcsik, In Defence of the “Democratic Deficit”: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union, 40 J. Common Mkt. Stud. 603 (2002).Google Scholar

¹³⁰ German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 262.Google Scholar

¹³¹ See Blauberger, Michael, Reinforcing the Asymmetries of European Integration, in The German Constitutional Court's Lisbon Ruling: Legal and Political-Science Perspectives, 49 (Andreas Fischer Lescano, Christian Joerges & Arndt Wonka eds., 2010).Google Scholar

¹³² German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 250–251.Google Scholar

¹³³ Id. at para. 287.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ See Halberstam, & Möllers, supra note 65, at 1242, 1249; see also Christofer Lenz, Ein einheitliches Verfahren für die Wahl des Europäischen Parlaments 279, 280 (1995).Google Scholar

¹³⁵ The discussion is in fact much older than the Lisbon Judgment. See Dieter Grimm, Does Europe need a Constitution?, 1 Eur. L.J. 282, 295 (1995); see also Mancini, supra note 24, at 35.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ For a critical analysis see Tom Eijsbouts, Wir sind das Volk: Notes about the Notion of “The People” as Occasioned by the Lissabon-Urteil, 6 Eur. Const. L. Rev 199 (2010).Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Peter Van Elsuwege and Anneli Albi, The EU Constitution, national constitutions and sovereignty: an assessment of a “European constitutional order”, 29 Eur. L.J. 757 (2004).Google Scholar

¹³⁸ For instance the United Kingdom and France, see Howard Richards, Understanding the Global Economy 344 (2004).Google Scholar

¹³⁹ See White, Phillip, Globalization and Mythology of the Nation State, in Global History: Interactions between the Universal and the Local 257 (Anthony Hopkins ed., 2006) (listing Belgium, Spain, Finland and Switzerland as examples).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ The EU Motto, European Union, http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/symbols/motto/index_en.htm. (last visited May 31, 2014).Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ See Bieber, , supra note note 16, at 400.Google Scholar

¹⁴² German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 224.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Kirchhof, Paul, Die Identität der Verfassung in ihren unabänderlichen Inhalten, in 1 Handbuch des Staatsrechts der bundesrepublik deutschland 775 (Josef Isensee & Paul Kirchhof eds., 1987).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ See Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz, http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/. (last visited May 31, 2014) (displaying the English translation).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ See Jarass, Hans D., Art. 116, in Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland Kommentar para. 4a. (Hans D. Jarass & Bodo Pieroth eds., 12th ed. 2012) (explaining that German Basic Law limits the attribute “German” to those with German nationality or so-called Status-Deutsche [status Germans], which, inter alia, require a vaguely defined deutsche Volkszugehörigkeit [German ethnic origin], supposedly expressed through descent, language, upbringing, and culture).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ On this historical debate between a Großdeutsche [grand German] or Kleindeutsche [small German] solution, see Hans-Christof Kraus, Kleindeutsch – Großdeutsch – Gesamtdeutsch? Eine Historikerkonktroverse der Zwischenkriegszeit, in Deutsche Kontroversen – Festschrift für Eckhard Jesse 71 (Alexander Gallus, Thomas Schubert & Tom Thieme eds., 2013); The Frankfurt Assembly in fact excluded the German speaking parts of the Austrian Empire in a failed attempt to secure overall Prussian leadership under a constitutional monarchy.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Though it must be added in fairness that the German Basic Law was intended as a provisional constitution to be replaced in the event of reunification. See Hans D. Jarass, Einleitung, in Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland Kommentar para. 1 (Hans D. Jarass & Bodo Pieroth eds., 12th ed. 2012).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ See German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 261–264, 278.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ See Doukas, , supra note 24, at 886; see also Halberstam & Möllers supra note 65, at 1252.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ See Grimm, , supra note 56, at 365.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ See Thym, , supra note 25, at 39, 40.Google Scholar

¹⁵² German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 240.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ See Wendel, , supra note 15, at 110; see also Halberstam & Möllers, supra note 65, at 1256; Bieber, supra note 16, at 396; see also Christian Tomuschat, Die Europäische Union unter der Aufsicht des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, EuGRZ 489 (1993).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ See Lock, , supra note 14, at 418. There is significant debate as to whether Germany could thusly join a European Federal State. See Hans D. Jarass, Art. 146, Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland Kommentar no. 3 (Hans D. Jarass & Bodo Pieroth eds., 12th ed. 2012).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ See Bieber, , supra note 16, at 402.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Though plainly that leaves the task of politically engaging European voters, see Giadomenico Majone, The Common Sense of European Integration, 13 J. Eur. Pub. Pol. 607 (2006).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ See Bieber, , supra note 16, at 402.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 236.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ On the complicated interactions between national parliaments and the EP, see Richard Corbett, The Evolving Roles of the European Parliament and of National Parliaments, in EU Law After Lisbon 248 (Andrea Biondi, Piet Eeckhout & Stefanie Ripley eds., 2012).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Communities art. 48, para. 7, Dec. 13, 2007, 2007 O.J. (C 306).Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 352, May 9, 2008, 2008 O.J. (C 115) [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

¹⁶² Id. art. 48, para. 2; id. art. 82, para. 3; id. art. 83, para. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 307–321.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 388.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Ruffert, Mathias, Nach dem Lissabon Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts – zur Anatomie einer Debate, 7 ZSE 388 (2010); Claus Dieter Classen, Legitime Stärkung des Bundestages oder verfassungsrechtliches Prokrustesbett? Zum Urteil des BVerfG zum Vertrag von Lissabon, JZ 881, 886 (2009).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Czech, CC, Lisbon II, supra note 11, at paras. 134–139.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ Czech, CC, Lisbon II, supra note 11, at para. 140.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ Id. at para. 139.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, at paras. 174–175. See also Jini Zemánek, The Two Lisbon Judgments of the Czech Constitutional Court, in Europe's Constitutional Challenges in the Light of the Recent Case Law of National Constitutional Courts – Lisbon And Beyond 57 (José Marian Beneyto & Ingolf Pernice eds., 2011).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, at paras. 153, 165–167.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ Polish, CT, Lisbon, supra note 13, at para. 2.6.Google Scholar

¹⁷² French, CC, Lisbon, supra note 12, at paras. 18, 19, 26.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ Id. at paras. 23, 27.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court] 2 BVR 2134/92, 89 BVerfGE 155 (Oct. 12, 1993).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at paras. 240, 338.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ Id. at para. 240.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ Which could lead to infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU. See Wendel supra note 15, at 129.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court] 2 BVR 2661/06, 126 BVerfGE 286 (July 6, 2010).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ Mangold v. Helm, ECJ Case No. C-144/04 (Nov. 22, 2005).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ Id. at para. 75.Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ Id. at para. 78.Google Scholar

¹⁸² See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court] 2 BVR 2661/06, 126 BVerfGE 286, paras. 60–61 (July 6, 2010).Google Scholar

¹⁸³ Id. at para. 66.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁴ There is debate as to whether a previous decision may also be qualified as ultra vires review, see Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court] Case No. 2 BVR 687/85, 75 BVerfGE 223 (Apr. 8, 1987).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁵ See Wendel, supra note 15, at 129 (particularly criticized by Judge Landau in his dissent); see also Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court] 2 BVR 2661/06, 126 BVerfGE 286, paras. 94– 116 (July 6, 2010).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ Möllers, Christoph, Constitututional Ultra Vires Review of European Acts Only Under Exceptional Circumstances, Case Note to Decision of July 6, 2010, 2 BvR 2661/06, 7 EuConst 166 (2011).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 2728/13; 2 BvR 2729/13; 2 BvR 2730/13; 2 BvR 2731/13; 2 BvE 13/13 (Jan. 14, 2014), available at https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen.html.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Möllers, note 186, at 161; Joseph H. Weiler, Editorial. “The Lisbon Urteil” and the Fast Food Culture, 20 EJIL 505 (2009); Schönberger, supra note 76, at 1201.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹ Möllers, supra note 186, at 166; Thym, supra note 25, at 38.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁰ Id. at 165Google Scholar

¹⁹¹ Id. at 167 (describing it as an unnecessary detour that has yielded little fruit).Google Scholar

¹⁹² See Wendel, , supra note 15, at 128.Google Scholar

¹⁹³ See Grimm, , supra note 56, at 357.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, para. 139.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁵ Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, paras. 120, 139.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁶ Case C-376/98, Germany v. Parliament & Council, 2000 E.C.R. 1-8149; Opinion Pursuant to Article 300(6) EC, Opinion 1/03, 2006 E.C.R. 1-01145.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁷ The subsequent, Case C-380/03, Germany v. Parliament & Council, 2006 E.C.R. I-11573, arguably expanded EU competences.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁸ See Briza, , supra note 82, at 154.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁹ Trybunał Konstytucyjny [Constitutional Tribunal], Case No. K 18/04, para. 15 (May 11, 2005) (Pol.) [hereinafter Polish CT, Accession Treaty].Google Scholar

²⁰⁰ Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2004-498DC, July 29, 2004, paras. 4–7 (Fr.); see also Reestman, supra note 15, at 390; Anne C. Becker, Vorrang versus Vorherrschaft, EUR 355 (2005); see also Tribunal Constitucional de España [Constitutional Tribunal of Spain] Case No. 1/2004, Dec. 13, 2004, para. II-3 (Sp.) [hereinafter Spanish CT, Constitutional Treaty]; Castillo de la Torre, Case Note, in 42 CMLR 1169 (2005).Google Scholar

²⁰¹ Literally: “As long as.”Google Scholar

²⁰² German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 337.Google Scholar

²⁰³ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court] Case No. 2 BvL 52/71, 37 BVerfGE 271, 279 (May 29, 1974).Google Scholar

²⁰⁴ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court] Case No. 2 BvR 197/83, 73 BVerfGE 339, 375 (Oct. 22, 1986).Google Scholar

²⁰⁵ Id. at 339, 387.Google Scholar

²⁰⁶ Voßkuhle, Andreas, Multilevel Cooperation of the European Constitutional Courts, 6 EuConst 175 (2010); Monika Polzin, Das Rangverhältnis von Verfassungs- und Unionsrecht nach der neuesten Rechtsprechung des BVerfG, 52 Juristische Schulung 1, 3 (2012).Google Scholar

²⁰⁷ The draft Accession Agreement has been finalized, see Council of Europe, Final Report to the CDDH (2013), http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/hrpolicy/accession/Meeting_reports/47_1%282013%29008rev2_EN.pdf, and is currently being considered by the ECJ under the procedure provided by Article 218, paragraph 11 TFEU.Google Scholar

²⁰⁸ See Czech, CC, Sugar Quotas, supra note 81.Google Scholar

²⁰⁹ Czech, CC, Lisbon I, supra note 11, at paras. 196, 197.Google Scholar

²¹⁰ Polish, CT, Lisbon, supra note 13, at para. 2.2.Google Scholar

²¹¹ French, CC, Loi relative à la bioéthique, supra note 200, at paras. 4–7.Google Scholar

²¹² Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens art. 11 (1789).Google Scholar

²¹³ See Reestman, , supra note 15, at 387.Google Scholar

²¹⁴ Mayer, Franz C., Rashomon in Karlsruhe – A Reflection on Democracy and Identity in the European Union 33 (5/10 Jean Monnet Program, Working Paper No. 05/10, 2010).Google Scholar

²¹⁵ German, CC, Lisbon, supra note 10, at para. 240.Google Scholar

²¹⁶ Bogandy, Armin von & Schill, Stephan, Die Achtung der nationalen Identität unter dem reformierten Unionsvertrag, ZaöRV 711, 727 (2010).Google Scholar

²¹⁷ A phenomenon that to Pedro Cruz Villalón attributes to globalization and Europeanization. Pedro Cruz Villalón, Grundlagen und Grundzüge staatlichen Verfassungsrecht: Vergleich, in 1 Handbuch Ius Publicum Europaeum 772 (Armin von Bogdandy et al. eds., 2007).Google Scholar

²¹⁸ The full question was: “What does being French mean to you?” See Besson relance le débat sur l'identité nationale, Le Monde (Oct. 25, 2009), http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2009/10/25/besson-relance-le-debat-sur-l-identite-nationale_1258628_823448.html.Google Scholar

²¹⁹ Risse, Thomas & Engelmann-Martin, Daniela, Identity Politics and European Integration: The Case of Germany, in The Idea of Europe: from Antiquity to the European Union 289 (Anthony Pagden ed., 2002). See Reestman, supra note 15, at 379.Google Scholar

²²⁰ Referring to the old provision: Albert Bleckmann, Die Wahrung der “nationalen Identität” im Unions-Vertrag, JZ 265 (1997); Ernst Steindorff, Mehr Staatliche Identität, Bürgernähe und Subsidiarität in Europa?, ZHR 395 (1999).Google Scholar

²²¹ See Wendel, , supra note 15, at 135.Google Scholar

²²² European Convention, Final Report of Working Group V 11 (2002).Google Scholar

²²³ See Mayer, , supra note 214, at 38.Google Scholar

²²⁴ See Reestman, , supra note 15, at 380.Google Scholar

²²⁵ Case C-6/64, Flaminio Costa v. ENEL, 1964 E.C.R. 585. See Alfred Grosser, The Federal Constitutional Court's Lisbon Case: Germany's “Sonderweg” – An Outsider's Perspective, 10 German L.J. 1264 (2009); Case C-314/85, Foto-Frost, 1987 E.C.R. 4199.Google Scholar

²²⁶ See Thym, , supra note 25, at 36.Google Scholar

²²⁷ See Beck, , supra note 57, at 480.Google Scholar

²²⁸ See, for example, the back and forth between the Spanish Constitutional Court and the ECJ: Aida Torres Perez, Constitutional Dialogue on the European Arrest Warrant: The Spanish Constitutional Court Knocking on Luxembourg's Door, 8 EuConst 105 (2012).Google Scholar

²²⁹ See Beck, , supra note 57, at 485.Google Scholar

²³⁰ See Daniel Thym, In the Name of Sovereign Statehood: A Critical Introduction to the Lisbon Judgment of the German Constitutional Court, 46 CML Rev. 1795 (2009) (describing how the author sees room for, “tangible judicial conflicts”). Similarly bleak is Wolfgan Münchau, Berlin Has Dealt a Blow to European Unity, Financial Times (July 12, 2009). See also Beck, supra note 57, at 480.Google Scholar

²³¹ See Voßkuhle, supra note 206, at 175; see also Ferdinand Kirchhof, Die Kooperation zwischen Bundesverfassungericht und Europäischem Gerichtshof, in Staatsrecht und Politik: Festschrift für Roman Herzog zum 75. Geburtstag 155 (Matthias Herdegen et al. eds., 2009).Google Scholar

²³² E.g., Choudhry, Sujit, Migration as a New Metaphor in Comparative Constitutional Law, in The Migration of Constitutional Ideas 1 (Sujit Choudhry ed., 2007).Google Scholar

²³³ See Möllers, supra note 186, at 167.Google Scholar

²³⁴ See Beck, , supra note 57, at 478; Grosser, supra note 225, at 1263; Matthias Niedobitek, The Lisbon Case of 30 June 2009 – A Comment From the European Law Perspective, 10 German L.J. 1269 (2009); see Christopher Klotz, Die Machtbalance zwischen Politik und verfassungsgerichtlicher Rechtsprechung, ZRP 5 (2012) (discussing the current balance of power between the German CC and the other branches of German government).Google Scholar

²³⁵ See Tomuschat, , supra note 9, at 1259 (deeming the Lisbon Judgment a “political manifesto”).Google Scholar

²³⁶ A recent example is the equal treatment of same sex couples in tax matters. See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 909/06, 2 BvR 1981/06, 2 BvR 288/07, 2013 NJW 2257 (May 7, 2013).Google Scholar

²³⁷ See Möllers, Christoph, Was ein Parlament ist, entscheiden die Richter, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, July 16, 2009.Google Scholar

²³⁸ See Grosser, , supra note 225, at 1263 (attesting the German CC a general loss of self-restraint altogether).Google Scholar

²³⁹ See Favoreu, Louis, La Politique Saisie par le Droit 30 (1988).Google Scholar

²⁴⁰ Adapted from: Peter Bucher, Der Parlamentarische Rat 1948–1949. Akten und Protokolle, Volume 2, in Der Verfassungskonvent auf Herrenchiemsee 580 (1981).Google Scholar